How Trade and Globalisation Help the Poor in Both Developed and Developing Countries - Essay Example

ASSESMENT By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date How Trade and Globalisation Help the Poor in both Developed and Developing Countries Introduction Trade according to Nahar and Siriwardana (2009) is a fundamental element of the poverty reduction as well as economic growth plan both in developed and developing nations. Hitherto, trade aid interconnects trade and aid into a wider pro-development plan whose general goal is to improve the standards of living as well as reduce poverty. To heighten the trade effects on poverty reduction, Elbadawi and Hegre (2008) affirms that the wider developed economies admit that integration of trade is a crucial element in attaining continuous economic growth. In addition, aid for trade initiatives offers a crucial framework to brace this course of action by dealing with poor people’s limitations to espousal the novel fiscal opportunities resulting from expanding global and regional markets. Globalization according to Prasad (2004) has linked up communism, capitalism, and imperialism in becoming a broad-spectrum tag that can be manipulated akin to a club in more or less any ideological direction. Furthermore, globalization is undoubtedly a crucial economic event, with substantive significances for both developed and developing countries. The study seeks to provide an insight how trade and globalisation can help the poor in both developed and developing countries. Discussion In the past twelve years, poverty as well as other associated issue of discrimination has dominated the agenda for international development. At diverse meetings from the early 90s onwards, global leaders have stated publicly their dedication to poverty reduction and also espoused a chain of associated targets. Saith (2006) posits that these cover a broad scope, from child and infant mortality to education registration, from gender egalitarianism to parental mortality, from right to use health facilities and other health-related services to the espousal of nationwide plan for sustainable development. The United Nations Millennium Declaration fused nearly all of the above listed targets, which includes reducing by 50% the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 (Norren, 2012). In scores of poor countries the needed information are not consistent and also are never in state-of-the-art. However, the international targets are helpful in drawing attention to relentless poverty, as well as in shaping views and developing a sense of exigency in the midst of the politicians, community along with the development society. Both developed and developing countries rely on global as well as national economic growth to realize the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) before 2015. For this reason, trade is acknowledged as an authoritative tool to fuel economic growth and reduce poverty. According to Bhasin and Obeng (2007), trade takes part in wiping out extreme poverty, and can reduce poverty by 50%, especially for individuals surviving with just one dollar a day. Furthermore, trade can develop an international development partnership, which may assist to address the needs of developing countries, by getting rid of trade barriers, heightening certified development aid from developed economies, and enhancing debt relief. Undoubtedly, poverty remains to be the most vital epidemic of modern world, but economist believe that to reduce extreme poverty in both developed and developing countries, the respective governments must considerably increase the speed of their economic development by cautiously opening their markets. The typical underlying principle is that trade liberalization enhances effectiveness in the distribution of scarce resources, improves fiscal wellbeing and leads to a long-standing fiscal development (Fotopoulos, 2005). Yet, whereas there could be long-standing benefits after opening their markets, economies that are liberalizing may end up enduring several short-term change costs. Reason being, as financial systems open up, the nation’s imports utilizes accessible channels, whilst its new-fangled exports chances time and again derive from various sectors that are still to adequately develop production ability. The world acknowledges the significance of globalisation and trade for economic development by means of initiatives, like Financing for Development, Aid for Trade and, above all, the Doha Round, which is the most recent round of trade negotiations in the midst of the World Trade Organization (WTO) membership (Weare, 2006). Norren (2012) in his study estimated that the worldwide yearly welfare benefits from trade liberalization is roughly between $100 billion and $200 billion, of which 67% would mount up to developing economies. This without doubt could facilitate raise over 150 million people from extreme poverty. Since the early days of 21st century, trade has assisted to activate firm development in developing economies, whose share according to Saith (2006) in the international trade has augmented from 30% in 1996 to 40% in 2006 and also its exports have constantly been increasing rapidly as compared to those of developed economies. This as per Ryan (2003) has encouraged development in export incomes, especially in developing countries. Simultaneously, per capita GDP, which remains to be one of the most pertinent indicators of Millennium Development Goals advancement, has heightened by over 16% in the last five years in Latin America, West Asia and Africa; as a result, it has led to substantial increases in investment as well as employment levels. Besides that, the firm increase in exports from developing economies has, significantly, been because of the constant decrease of international tariffs as trade barriers. Generally, global tariffs reduced from 11% in 2000 to 7% in 2006 (Siddiqui & Kemal, 2006). Yet, there exist some proof that developing economies face excessively higher trade barriers and tariffs on export products interest; for instance, agricultural exports in developing countries faced, typically, an 8.9% tariff in 2005. Furthermore, developed economies in Europe and North America still impose import taxes from developing countries, which according to Siddiqui and Kemal (2006) are twice over those from developed economies. In Asia, Malaysia, which is one of the open markets in Asia, demonstrates how globalisation and trade can be a substantial tool for realizing the Millennium Development Goals. Its conventional exports, like electrical and electronics products, palm oil, and natural rubber have been sustained for decades by trade policies that have permitted the nation to become accustomed to global competition and build up value-added services. Malaysia' GDP growth attained a remarkable average of 10.1% per year after enacting an export-oriented plan in 1991. Other triumphant initiatives have been instigated in Africa in countries such as Kenya, Mauritius, and Rwanda (Elbadawi & Hegre, 2008). Bearing in mind such achievement cases, Ryan (2003) wonders if developing countries should boldly rush towards trade liberalization. Basically, the answer is no, because these countries must be more careful towards rushing to trade competition. Modern economic research acknowledges that the connection amongst trade growth and openness is more complicated as compared to a trouble-free causation. It is worth noting that trade liberalization does not routinely boost trade, not to mention growth, and so the trade openness effects rely heavily on the context of the country, more willingly than on the hypothetical demonstration application. The actuality according to Fotopoulos (2005) is that trade liberalization has distinct impact on poverty in various countries, relying on a broad scope of factors, which entails infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, along with the economic sector. It is somewhat apparent that trade single-handedly will not assist the developing countries realize the reach the M Millennium Development Goals and that the international community must considerably heighten its endeavors to handle trade liberalization as well as ascertain definite conditions for development to occur in every country. Furthermore, Prasad (2004) suggests that developing countries must be well equipped prior to penetrating the international market. Importantly, to reduce poverty both developed and developing countries must expand or develop their supply ability prior to opening to international competition. Moreover, they will require financial as well as technical support to gain from the chances offered by the trade opening. As a result, the World Trade Organization launched the Aid for Trade initiative, which according to Norren (2012) was developed to assist developing economies develop the capacity of their supply by springing up industrious capacity investments, infrastructure investments, in addition to transition aid. For instance, this will assist African farm producers to have access to the global markets. To reduce joblessness misery from the transition of open markets, Nahar and Siriwardana (2009) posit that poverty stricken countries must also develop nets for social safety. While developing world continues to liberalize, employees in sectors devoid of competitive advantage will obviously face job loss; thus, creating the need to transfer employees to the recently developing sectors, which entails training policies. Temporarily, trade reform will as well reduce revenues from government tariff, decreasing public spending especially desired to face the rising redundancy. The World Trade Organization must for that reason help developing world in managing such adjustment costs, and this is why the UN system demands integration of every development policy into the National Development Strategy of all developing countries (Siddiqui & Kemal, 2006). Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that globalisation and trade remains a crucial aspect in the declining value of produced goods, and they also offer a chance for companies in developing economies to export in a wider market. Export steered development has been a crucial aspect in heightening fiscal welfare in both developed and developing countries. As seen in the literature, trade and globalisation brings about heightened competition between various countries, which as a result, exerts pressure on countries to be more and more resourceful and provide improved products for end users. What’s more, globalisation process has given developing countries confidence to invest in developed countries; thus, increasing the country GDP, and as a result reducing prevalence of poverty in the country. References Bhasin, V., & Obeng, C. (2007). Trade Liberalization, Foreign Aid, Poverty and Income Distribution of Households in Ghana. Ghana Policy Journal, 1(1), 5-22. Elbadawi, I., & Hegre, H. (2008). Globalization, economic shocks, and internal armed conflict. Defence and peace economics, 19(1), 37-60. Fotopoulos, T. (2005). And now France: Neoliberal globalisation again under attack. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, 1(4), 1-2. Nahar, B., & Siriwardana, M. (2009). Impact of Trade Liberalization on Poverty in Bangladesh: A Quantitative Assessment. South Asia Economic Journal, 10(2), 325-369. Norren, D. E. (2012). The wheel of development: the Millennium Development Goals as a communication and development tool. Third World quarterly, 33(5), 825-836. Prasad, B. C. (2004). Globalisation, free trade and corporate citizenship in Pacific Forum Island Countries: how relevant is the United Nations global compact? Journal of corporate citizenship, 13, 65-76. Ryan, C. (2003). Youth Employment in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Youth and Development, 1(1), 50-76. Saith, A. (2006). From universal values to Millennium Development Goals: lost in translation. Development and change, 37(3), 1167-1199. Siddiqui, R., & Kemal, A. R. (2006). Remittances, Trade Liberalisation, and Poverty in Pakistan: The Role of Excluded Variables in Poverty Change Analysis. Pakistan Development Review, 45(3), 383-415. Weare, K. M. (2006). Globalization and Free Trade: Undermining Human Dignity. Nature, Society, and Thought, 19(3), 351-356. Read More